ARE WE GETTING THROUGH YET?

The national Republican party just doesn't get it.  Even after all these months, they still don't understand what conservatives want - I'm talking to you, Messrs. Rove and Cornyn.  When Tea Partiers say they are tired of both parties, they mean it.  They are tired of the reckless, untargeted spending, the pork, the expansion of government and the wholesale repudiation of the Constitution, and that was not just under the guidance of the democrats.  Bush was hated for his spending and expansion, too - was vilified for it, actually, and the democrats came into power in 2006 because of it.  The Tea Partiers aren't just looking at the past two years and dems were not the only ones in their sights, and the Delaware senate primary was proof of that.

Yesterday, Christine O'Donnell won the republican primary against incumbent Mike Castle.  This was a come from behind victory, in a hotly contested race.  She was heavily endorsed by the Tea Party Express and Sarah Palin, but had a much smaller war chest and some personal baggage, and yet still she won.  Establishment republicans are bemoaning her win, saying the seat is all but gone.  Democrats are cheering for their good fortune.  The National Republican Senate Committe, chaired by Sen. Cornyn, came out last night after the race was called for O'Donnell and flatly stated that they would not be funding her race in the general election.

Talk about sour grapes.  They feel O'Donnell doesn't have a snowball's chance, so they want to cut their losses and reroute the money to a race with better prospects.  Mike Castle refused to throw his support in with O'Donnell - a petty bit of churlishness - and the Delaware GOP still haven't taken down their attack website. 

Fortunately for Ms. O'Donnell, the NRSC was shamed into are seeing the error of their ways and made a max contribution today of $42,000.  Cornyn, in a deft move, then turned the potentially damaging funding and support issue back on the democrats, calling on them to fund their own longshot races.  Quite the politician.

As wonderfully unifying as it is that the NRSC is making nice-nice with O'Donnell and ponying up some cash, she doesn't seem to really need them right now.  Her website has been so inundated that it has been crashing all day.  There are reports that her money bomb bagged a whopping $750,000 today. 

It will be an interesting race to follow.   It is understandable that the RNC would support their own incumbent during the primary, but their petulant reaction to the loss is not.  They should take their cues from Bill Clinton.  Never thought I'd say that.  Speaking of Mr. Clinton, he had a moment of insight that the republicans should also take to heart.  He was referring to Bush when he said:

"A lot of their candidates today, they make him look like a liberal,"

Actually, a progressive, but why split hairs?

It is true that O'Donnell's chances are slim, but the desire for fiscal restraint is a powerful force these days, and should not be discounted.  As Ms. O'Donnell herself said, the experts said she didn't have a chance of winning the primary against the oh-so-popular and much loved Mike Castle, either.  And perhaps, if he hadn't voted for cap and trade, she might not have won.  But the cap and trade vote was what did him in.  It branded him a RINO and, with a few exceptions like John McCain (amazing how his pre-primary "no amnesty whatsoever" has phased into post-primary "resolving their issues..."), RINO's are becoming an endangered species politically speaking.

The republicans should take note and learn from this.  Are they being "held hostage" by the "right-wing radicals" that allegedly are the tea parties?  Well, if demanding a return to their fiscally conservative roots is being held hostage, then yes, they are.  Does it mean a return to ultra-conservative policies across the board, as democrats keep warning?  Not so much.  Most tea partiers are only concerned with fiscal policies.  Since the the early 1990's, the republican party has tacked to the center-left, buying into the theory that bringing home pork and expanding government was the way to keep getting elected.  The needs of the country were secondary to the party and the individual politician, and the Constitution was an inconvenient piece of paper that restricted their plans.  Establishment pols are being tossed because they are the problem, and the problem is on both sides of the aisle. 

Never underestimate an electorate scorned and taxed to within an inch of their lives.  Establishment  politicians have forgotten that they are public servants.  The tea party is simply reminding them.  They would be wise to take heed.  Even Chris Matthews has gotten the memo:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

PRIMARY DAY! Updated

 Today is primary day here in Florida.  There are two races that are particularly interesting, at least from where I sit in Central Florida, and one that I simply can't wait to be over.  The first is the Senate democrat primary pitting Rep. Kendrick Meek v. Jeff Greene.   The second is to determine which republican will be running against Rep. Alan Grayson in CD 8.   It's a pretty wide field (here's a rundown on where they stand on the issues), but the two front-runners seem to be Daniel Webster and Todd Long - at least, if the number of yard signs is any indicator. 

As an unaffiliated voter, I am not eligible to vote in the primaries so I'm playing the waiting game, hoping the primary voters make good choices.  The district 8 primary is more important to me than the senate primary right now, simply because we need someone strong to go against Grayson because Grayson most definitely must go.  Of the seven challengers, two seem to be leading the pack.  Todd Long came close to defeating Ric Keller in the '08 primary, so he has recent name recognition, and Daniel Webster has been in local and state politics for decades.  Both seem pretty strong,  Strong enough to beat Grayson?  God, I hope so. 

Which brings us to the Senate primary.  The democrat primary outcome is of the utmost importance to both Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio.  If Meek wins, Rubio will, at least accoording to polling so far, win the general election.  Crist has been peeling off democrats from Meek in preliminary polling, making Meek a weak candidate, but he's not attracting enough democrats to put himself over the top, thus splitting the democrat vote and handing Rubio the win in the three-way race. 

Jeff Greene seems to be damaged goods at this point, because of the stories that have been making the rounds about the wild parties on his yacht.  While there are plenty of allegations but no proof of drug use or any other illegal activities, the stories are rather unsenatorial (as are the racy pictures), and the references to the 145ft yacht and the ultra-rich celebrity lifestyle of billionaire Greene strikes a discordant tone in these tough times.  If Greene wins the primary, Crist will attract many democrats who are underwhelmed by Greene, which would push Crist over the finish line ahead of Rubio.

There is scuttlebutt that even if Meek wins, democrat groups, including the DSCC, will support Crist, as he seems to have a better shot of winning than Meek and has indicated that, as an independent, he would caucus with the democrats.  Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that the DNC would back Crist over Meek (at least out in the open).  First, Crist is unreliable, as his jump from republican to independent solely to save his political hide illustrates, and second (and more importantly), Meek is an african-american democrat congressman running for a seat in the Senate - a Senate that will be seeing it's only black member, Roland Burris, leaving office in January.  If the DNC were to throw their support behind Crist instead of Meek, they run the risk of bad blood with the Congressional Black Caucus and potentially alienate the black community in the vital swing state that is Florida. 

If, however, Jeff Greene should happen to win the primary (a slim chance, as he's down 10 points in the polls), definitely expect the DNC to back Crist.  There has already been a national democrat-run fundraiser for him - perhaps a little bet-hedging?  It will be interesting to see what happens if Meek wins.  Dilemma, dilemma!

Finally, there is the McCollum/Scott faceoff.  This has been a hotly contested primary, with attack ads airing ad nauseum.  The winner will face democrat Alex Sink for the governor's mansion.  This race in particular has been attack-oriented and there has been so much mud slung that many Floridians are feeling a little dirty from it all.  McCollum is the front-runner, but Scott is fighting to the finish.  With a little luck, the general election will be more civil.  There has been so much finger-pointing and lesser-of-two-evils style campaigning that it would be nice to actually hear what the various candidates would like to accomplish if they win, instead of merely demonizing their opponents.  The McCollum/Scott matchup was particularly virulent.  Frankly, with all of the attacks, neither one of them are very appealing right now.  Hopefully, once the winner is announced, we will learn what he stands for - that would be a refreshing change.

Remember the days when attack ads were the last ditch effort at the end of the campaign?  Ah, the good old days.  Where once that tactic was called "going negative" it is now simply called "campaigning".  Instead of lists of pros and cons for each candidate, we are inundated with lists of cons only.  Which is actually rather fitting, considering how ethically challenged recent politicians have been.  A list of "cons" indeed - it's known as a ballot.

Happy Voting!

UPDATE:  The results are in - Kendrick Meek and Daniel Webster are moving on to the next round.  As of this writing, Rick Scott is ahead with 47% of  the vote, with 54% of precincts reporting.  The race should be called in his favor soon.  The players are now set, so let the games begin!

PRIMARY ROUNDUP

Last night was primary night for Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Arkansas.  The good news?  Benedict Arlen Specter has lost his primary.  The people of Pennsylvania have spoken, and they are saying "enough!".  Was it his switching parties (again) in an obvious attempt to save his career, or was it his numerous gaffes during the campaign that sank him?  Most likely a combination of things.  Quite frankly, he was the poster boy for term limits for this election cycle.  Buh-bye, Arlen!

The democrats are crowing over their victory in Rep. Murtha's district, of course.  The voters are sending Democrat Mark Critz to Washington to fill Murtha's seat.  While the democrat establishment is over the moon on this victory, it's really a mixed bag if you take a closer look.  The thing is, Critz ran against Pelosi, against Obama and against ObamaCare.  So, is that really a victory for the democrat machine? Although a democrat won, it was still a vote against the current establishment.  No doubt that will be ignored and it will be spun as a victory for the Democrats and Pelosi.

In Kentucky, Rep. Ron Paul's son Rand won his primary.  This is a victory for the Tea Party, who heavily backed him against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's pick, Trey Grayson.  No doubt the democrats will label this as more proof that the "radical fringe" is taking over the Republican party.  This from the party that is shedding moderates like Evan Bayh  and Bart Stupak without a second thought while forcing the remainder to toe Pelosi's party line.

Arkansas is a wash - Sen. Blanche Lincoln technically won the primary with 45% of the vote to her opponent's 43%, but a 50%+ majority is required, so there will be a runoff.

All in all, it was a bad day for the party in power.  Even when they won, it wasn't really a win.  Which means the spin will be aggressive and vehement this week.

But, then, what else is new - they have been sounding more and more shrill as the weeks pass.  Pretty soon they will reach a pitch that only dogs can hear.

YOU CUT

Congressional Republicans, headed by Minority Whip Eric Cantor have started a new website called "You Cut" that allows common Americans to vote for what spending cuts you want to see Congress adopt.


This is an interesting idea, if it takes off. They are offering up five different spending programs for the chopping block each week. Whatever program earns the most votes from the public will be offered up for a vote in Congress the next week. No doubt they will get a lot of flack and ridicule from the left over this one, but I personally think it's great for a few reasons.

First of all, it's fascinating to see all of the ways that Congress is wasting our money (and how much is being wasted). You hear rumors about some of the crazy or unnecessary things our money is being spent on, but to see it in black and white on a Congressional website, well, it really puts it into perspective. If you have high blood pressure or ulcers, you might want to medicate yourself before you check it out each week!

Second, in a political climate where it often feels like the train is out of control and heading off the tracks, this offers a way to give Congress your two cents on a very important issue - spending. And not just spending in general, as we have been attempting to do with the Tea Parties - we're talking specific, targeted spending programs. President Obama created the deficit reduction committee, but it won't be coming out with anything constructive until December, and doubtless there will be more in the way of taxation instead of spending cuts in their recommendations. Increased taxation will only prolong our suffering - especially at the levels they will need to tax in order to make a dent in the deficit. The only way out of this hole is through spending cuts. Politicians hate spending cuts because someone always loses out and voters become alienated. Perhaps if the cuts are brought to them by popular demand, they will grow some spines and do what's necessary to save this country from financial ruin. Don't hold your breath, though. These are politicians we're talking about, after all.

Finally, there are major political ramifications to this. As I mentioned before, the left will attempt to ridicule the Republicans on this - after all, when they have no other defense, they always turn to derision. The odds of the democrats voting down these proposed cuts are very high, but they need to really think before they do so. Not only will they be voting down Republican introduced spending cuts at a time when they are trying to paint themselves as deficit hawks, but they will be voting down cuts that were presented to Congress by popular fiat. They are used to thumbing their noses at We the Peons in general, but this will be a direct dismissal of what the American people want. The big question is, will their unprecedented tone deafness go that far?

In order to submit your vote, you must give them an email address. That's it. No other personal information required. You can vote more than once (I voted first for the Welfare Non-Reform Program and then the Subsidized Union Activities), and you can vote online or via text. So check out "You Cut" on Eric Cantor's website. Let me know what you think, and, as they say in Chicago, vote early and vote often!

 

Cross Posted at The Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots

WHEN IN DOUBT, DEMONIZE

With the ink now dry on the health care bill, scrutiny is finally allowed.  After two days of gloating and self-glorification, the democrats are back to playing defense. 

The fact that the IRS is the enforcement arm of the bill has finally reached the general consciousness.  So too the missed demographics and taxation.  Does funding viagra for rapists and pedophiles count as one of those 'goodies' we kept hearing about?

Democrats assured us that there would be so many goodies once the bill was passed that the country would just fall in love with the legislation.  So far, the only thing that has kicked in has been taxes.

In an effort to control the debate and demonize the opposition, democrats are playing up threats, and laying them at the feet of tea partyers and republicans in general.  Yes, there is a great deal of anger out there over how this bill was passed and what it contains, but at no point have the protesters been violent. In addition, threats and violent acts are being heaped on republicans as well, so democrats aren't the only intended victims.   Democrat accusations of slurs being shouted at them on Sunday during the protests have been unsubstantiated, even though there is video and still photography of the event. 

Pelosi and the democrat's 'victory march' through the crowds of protesters was an asinine decision, and it's hard to understand their methodology behind it.  They must have known that they would be heckled, considering they were marching through a crowd that mainly consisted of opposition.  Which begs the question - were they hoping to catch such an incident on tape?

They know the bill is unpopular, and whenever they are faced with opposition, their go-to tactic is demonization.  What better way to do that than to go amongst an angry crowd and try to provoke them?  Every other attempt to paint the protesters as violent mobs has failed or been exposed, but, as the yearlong fight for the health care bill proves, these people are nothing if not tenacious. 

Let's not forget that there are plenty of people on the other side of the aisle who are angry with the bill, too, because of it's lack of a public option and it's alleged 'toothlessness'.  There are also those who like to pretend to be opposition and do things to put the opposition in a bad light.  A great example of this is the democrat supporter in Colorado who shattered the glass windows of a democrat campaign office after the 2008 election.  The democrats were quick to blame the right, but it turns out they were very, very wrong.  Needless to say, no apology was issued, and no corrections were made in the press.

What is really bothersome is how quickly these verbal threats are called terrorism, and yet Osama Bin Laden came out with another tape this week calling for the deaths of innocent Americans and nothing is said about it.  That is to be expected, though - after all, thousands of innocent people in numerous attacks have been slaughtered by those right wing tea bagger freaks....oh, wait....(BTW - since the left calls tea partyers 'tea baggers', does that mean the tea partyers get to call the left 'douchebaggers'?  They are both equally offensive terms...)

Did you ever think that a political party in America would stoop to calling a large portion of the public terrorists and the enemy?   During the Bush years, when he was being hung and/or burned in effegy, compared to Hitler and called the AntiChrist, dissent against government was patriotic.  Suddenly every word spoken against the current administration's policies are racist and/or dangerous.  You might say it was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but then you'd probably be accused of being a racist for using the word 'black' in a sentence.

It is pretty obvious that democrats are attempting to smear the tea party movement in a desperate bid to discredit a peaceful, patriotic movement that obviously scares the bejesus out of them.  The Tea Party movement is a tough nut to crack for progressives, because it doesn't play into their gameplan.  Their tactics involve creating a leader and demonizing him/her, which then enables them to paint all followers of the movement with the same broad brush.  They haven't been able to do that with the leaderless Tea party, so they are instead left with vague accusations of unsubstantiated wrongdoing.

Isn't it amazing how Rep. Bart Stupak's allegations of threats to himself and his family when he was considered a no vote were of no consequence, but now that he voted yes and is still receiving threats, suddenly his life is in jeapardy?  There is also hardly any mention of Rep. Steven Lynch's (D-MA) threatening phone calls - probably because they originate from unions and health care supporters who are angry that he voted no. 

There are a few things being investigated right now, such as a cut gas line at the home of the brother of Congressman Tom Periello and windows broken at Rep. Louise Slaughter's NY offices.  The gas line incident in particular is quite serious, and we need to let the authorities get to the bottom of it.

The Tea Parties have been slandered before and been vindicated, so before anyone jumps to any conclusions, let's do what we do in America - grant the accused the presumption of innocence.  If the investigations turn up radical right-wingers, then they should be punished, just as if it is radical left-wingers at fault there should be prosecutions.

In the meantime, the democrats in Congress need to shut their traps and allow the investigations to be concluded before they throw any more bombs. 

When, exactly, did the demonization of fellow Americans become good politics?

THE POLITICS OF DECEPTION

The most frightening part of this legislation isn't a specific part of the bill (although there are some pretty horrifying bits).  What is really scary is the length this administration is willing to go to pass it.  Not only are they sneaky and underhanded in their closed door crafting of this piece of....work...they are knowingly (he is, after all, a constitutional lawyer) violating the constitution in their brazen attempt to impose their will on the country.

Just how low are they willing to sink?

Well, first there is Bart Stupak's worthless piece of paper.  He has been duped and will have sold his vote (and 8 or 9 others) for nothing.  Executive orders are secondary to the law of the land, and the new law of the land after the Senate bill passes will be that abortions will receive federal funding.  For what it's worth, he can always take the order, tear it into strips and take it with him on his next visit to the congressional washroom.  That's about all it's good for.

And then there is the Slaughter Solution.   Once it got the nic-name Demon Pass, though, it was done for.  You have to hand it to them - those progressives sure do know a poisonous name association when they see one, don't they?  It is, after all, their favorite tactic.

There are plenty of other shady deals and misinformation in the creation and attempted sale of this bill of goods - far too many to mention.  But it seems that even after all of their other little schemes have been discovered, they are still trying.  Former PA republican senator Rick Santorum mentioned a really shady piece of information about the House reconciliation bill during his interview with Greta Van Susteren.  

According to Mr. Santorum, the Budget Act of 1974 states that revenues slated for Social Security cannot be used for other programs.  The current reconciliation has a provision for "rerouting" SocSec revenues into Medicaid.  This would nullify the entire Reconciliation package.  This means all of the promises that were made to persuade reluctant House democrats to fall on their swords was nothing but hot air. 

Senate Republicans have been attempting to meet with Leader Reid and the Senate Parliamentarian to get some sort of resolution to this situation before the House votes.  So far they have been unable to get a meeting. 

After listening to Santorum explain the deception, Van Susteren asked, "Could they be that diabolical?"

Let's let Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) answer that one, shall we?




They certainly have learned their Alinsky well, haven't they?

There is always the hope that Stupak and House Dems in general will realise they've been duped, but it's most likely this nightmare is going to pass. 

After this, there is still debate in the Senate, but only on the reconciliation package - the main Senate bill will be the law of the land.  If the reconciliation is voted down or nullified in some way, there is absolutely no doubt that Obama will sign the Senate bill into law without the "fixes".  That might just be even worse.  The whole point of Senate republicans making this public is an attempt to have wavering dems rethink their vote.  Odds are good that they won't. 

It's not over 'til the fat lady sings, but you can hear her warming up in the wings, and she'll probably be singing a dirge.

OPERATION HOUSECALL REDUX

It's time to do your part and call your congressperson.  It will be difficult, because the phone lines have been notoriously busy, but it's worth it.  Let your voice be heard.  But remember - be polite, be concise, and be firm.

If you can't spend an hour or two hitting redial, send them an email.  You can only email the congressman who directly represents you.  You might also want to try the local offices for your representative in your state.  Burn up their phone lines, too.  Word will get back to them, fear not.

To email your congressman, click here.  You will need your zip code and four digit zip code extension in order to email the right representative.

Here is the US Capitol switchboard number - (202) 224-3121.  Ask for your representative by name.  Be prepared for a busy signal, but don't lose hope - people are getting through.

You can also check out Congress.org's congressional directory.  You can enter either your zip code (it might ask you for a street address if you live in a county with split districts) or your reps name.  A page will come up with the representative's name and vital stats.  There are tabs at the top of the page - the second tab is for contact information.  You can connect with his/her congressional website to leave an email, or contact their D.C. office or their local offices via telephone.

Operation Housecall is in effect again.  It's time to do our civic duty and remind our representatives that they work for us.  At least, for now.....

BIPARTISAN BIG BROTHER

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have come up with a dilly of a plan to deal with illegal workers.  This new plan will require all US workers to have federal ID cards.  These cards will be biometric, which means you will have to be fingerprinted in order to get one.  In order to get a job, you will be mandated by the federal government to have a card. 

Perhaps I'm just becoming more and more paranoid, but I have visions of being asked for my "papers", much like Europe in the 1930's and 40's (via The Wall St. Journal):

"It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."

On top of that, it seems that the "immigration reform" they are hammering out is more like amnesty.  According to Chuck Schumer,

The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. "If you say they can't get a job when they come here, you'll stop it."

That statement, to me, spells amnesty for the upwards of 12 million illegals currently in the country.  Why would there be another wave of illegals after the legislation is signed if not because the previous wave was given amnesty?  (What do you think the odds are that someone will try a discrimination challenge to the law for allowing a previous group to come in but not the next?  Follow-up question - What do you think the chances are they will win?)

This bill seems to be all about amnesty and tracking US workers.  What I haven't heard about it is how it will address border security and illegals who work under the table.  When are we going to stem the flood of illegals flowing over our borders?  That isn't just about jobs, guys, it's about national security. 

No amnesty, no federal ID cards.  Back to the drawing board.  Secure our borders, and if they came here illegally, they should be unceremoniously sent back.  The only amnesty I'd support would be for those who came here legally but overstayed their visas, and even then, they need to be put through the process, not just automatically given citizenship.  If someone sneaks into this country illegally, in my opinion they are automatically 'undesirables' and should not be given any breaks. 

Tens of millions of people have legally emigrated to this country, my own ancestors included.  They went through the rather degrading process at Ellis Island and then went on to become taxpaying, voting, contributing members of society, no worse for the wear.  My paternal grandmother refused to speak polish because that was not the language of her country.  They left Poland because they wanted to be Americans - and not Polish-Americans, either.  Just Americans. 

I hear all this talk from the left about fairness - how is it fair that those millions upon millions of people had to jump through hoops and meet the requirements for citizenship, become contributing members of society and integrate into the fabric of this country, and yet others are just given a pass on our laws and procedures, can't be bothered to learn the language (and don't really need to anymore), are catered to by our government and allowed to create their own ethnic enclaves to keep themselves separate and apart?

Am I anti-immigration?  Hell no.  This country was created by immigrants, my own family included.  I'm proud of our Melting Pot society - it made us vibrant and innovative and unique in all the world.  But I am very much anti-illegal-immigration.  We allow in millions of legal immigrants every year from all over the world and we have numerous programs to help those emigres become productive members of one of the greatest countries the world has ever known.  There is no excuse for breaking our laws upon entering our country.

Perhaps there should be some talk about making it easier to emigrate from places like Mexico to the US.  But, then again, considering fully one-third of the country would emigrate if they could, perhaps relaxing the requirements might not be such a good idea - that's an awful lot of people to integrate, no matter how you slice it or where they come from.

The point is, this proposed legislation is a mess.  Granting amnesty (again) won't solve the problem, and neither will punishing law abiding legal citizens by forcing them to carry around federal documentation of their legal status.

Our government's bipartisan PC efforts to make sure they don't alienate the illegal aliens at the expense of legal citizens is no surprise.  That Lindsey Grahamnesty is the power behind it is no surprise, either.

Want to know another not surprising thing?  The public outcry against this idiotic plan.

CIRCUS RECAP

Well, the Circus is over.  The six hour health care summit stretched to seven hours.  The breakdown on speaking was Obama - one hour 53 minutes, Democrats - three hours 53 minutes, Republicans - one hour 50 minutes.  Yeah, that's bipartisan.  Hot Air's Allahpundit has a great rundown on what he calls the 'Freakshow'.

Obama came off a little snippy and, surprise, surprise, arrogant.  Republicans really brought their A game, in my opinion.  Not that they got a lot of floor time, but that was to be expected, and they really made the most of the time they were allowed.  They were on point talking about the differences between what the dems want and what they want.  The democrats relied on a string of sob stories and some wild statements like Harry Reid saying no one has been talking about reconciliation.  Really, Harry?  Really? 

Queen Nancy went at it from another angle - jobs.  Yup, you got it - this bill is all about jobs.  Four million of them.  Apparently 400,000 of them will be created immediately.  The thing is, as ridiculous as it may sound, she's probably right.  Unfortunately, all of those jobs will be created because of the giant behemoth government bureaucracy they are trying to set up, but, hey, a job is a job, right?  Of course, all those doctors retiring and/or quitting will change those numbers a bit, as well as all of the jobs lost when the insurance companies start closing down because they are being priced out of the market or crippled by overbearing regulations and artificial pricing.

The republicans were talking policy and trying to find the points of agreement and explain their opposition to other points, and the democrats were busy spewing one sob story after another, working that liberal guilt to within an inch of their lives, either unwilling or unable to explain their positions.  It was a little pathetic, actually.

I understand that there are people out there who are victimized by shady insurance policies; I know that people fall through the cracks.  But they are talking about reshaping an entire industry from top to bottom when things like simple regulation to prevent discrimination against pre-existing conditions would be sufficient.  The republicans were trying to point out that lowering costs by implimenting tort reform and interstate commerce, among other things, would enable more people to afford insurance, so more people would be insured -  without a government takeover of the health care system. 

The problem with that argument, of course, is that, for the democrats, the whole point of 'reform' is government takeover.  There is no middle ground on this, because the two sides are diametrically opposed.  The democrats are offering socialized medicine in the European model, and the republicans are offering free market solutions.  The democrats refused to even discuss tort reform and interstate solutions because they would work (well, and also because they don't want to tick off the trial lawyers - they're a goldmine for campaign contributions).

For all of Harry Reid's denials, reconciliation is on the table.  Before the democrats jump on that grenade, however, they should consider that it might possibly be the death knell of their party for a generation or more.  Disapproval for their bills have been holding steady at about 56% for the past three months.  Over 60% want them to start from scratch.  A majority oppose the partisan tactic of reconciliation, including, apparently, one of the creators of the process.  They proceed with it at their own risk.  But considering how incredibly tone deaf they have been so far, don't be surprised if they pull the trigger anyway. 

I have to admit that I was worried that the Republicans would fare poorly today, but they did great.  And if Obama's surly expression and attitude are any indication, he knows it - and so do others.

BEWARE THE CIRCUS

Am I the only one having a hard time buying the concept of Barack Obama inviting Republicans for a "bipartisan" "summit", when the run-up to it has been nothing by threats of 'nuclear options', intimidation and name calling?  (BTW - am I the only one who gets a faint whiff of a beery aftertaste whenever I hear the term 'summit' anymore?)

This whole media circus  is rather reminiscent of, well, a circus.  In the Roman tradition of Bread and Circus, of course - and boy, is there a lot of bread at stake over this circus. 

Thursday's show is shaping up to be a real crowd favorite - Christians vs. Lions.  The Lions are starving so they will grab at anything, and they have been poked at for weeks by the public, so they are really out for blood.  The Christians are wary, but have managed to smuggle in a few weapons due to the Emperor's remarkably unobservant watchdogs.

The crowd has been whipped up into a frenzy by the aggressive posturing and antics of the Lions.  The Lions have already managed to scored a few victories over the Christians with their conquests of Omnibus Maximum and Stimulus Minimum.   These 'victories', however, have only caused the Christians to become more set in their resolve against the gluttonous Lions.

The Lions constant roaring about the Christians being unarmed but for their cries of 'No!" has distracted them and allowed the Christians to arm themselves with a few weapons of their own.  The Lions are aware of these weapons, but feel that their constant loud roaring is enough to combat that particular threat.

Tomorrow is the big day.  Tomorrow, the Lions and the Christians face off, and it is ostensibly up to the crowd to decide - thumbs up, or thumbs down.

Not that it really matters what the crowd wants.  The Lions have the keys to the dungeon and, regardless of tomorrow's outcome, have repeatedly threatened to lock the Christians out so they can continue to run amok.  Perhaps they assume that their new $15 billion infusion of bread will calm any ruffled feathers in the crowd and pave their way to a new season of Circuses next year.

A word to the wise on this tactic of Bread and Circuses - even they could not keep the mighty Roman empire from crumbling under the weight of it's own excesses.  Appeasing the crowds with a glut of meaningless showmanship will only go so far.  As they distract themselves with spectacle, the Barbarians are at the gate, and they will not be distracted.  The Lions, in their arrogance, fear not these Barbarians, for they do not carry torches and pitchforks - they merely carry tea and voter registration cards.

The Lions would be wise to sheathe their claws, stifle their roars and focus on the Barbarians as the Christians seem to be doing.  That is the pathway to redemption and success, and it cannot be reached through the Circus Maximus, no matter how 'media savvy' it may be.

cross posted at Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots

BEWARE THE TRAP Updated

I was quite skeptical of the 'health care summit' proposed by President Obama.  Considering the sneaky, backdoor dealings of this administration so far, I figured it was just a trap. The more I hear about it, the more I think my first instinct was right.  I had hoped that the democrats had seen the writing on the wall and were tacking to the center, but, as usual, it seems to be all smoke and mirrors. 

This whole things smacks of  a show for the American people by a remarkably media savvy administration.  The Democrats are attempting to look reasonable and willing to compromise.  If the republicans refused the meeting, they would look surly and partisan.  Unfortunately, accepting is just as much of a trap, because now they will be harangued, browbeaten and used as political cover for the mess of a bill that democrats are single-mindedly trying to ram down our throats.   Republicans requested starting from scratch and the Democrat's response is to bring their 2000 page nightmare of a bill (public option included) to the table, along with the hollow threat of reconciliation.

It's incredible that they are still talking about reconciliation - if this is possible, why haven't they done it?  Why bother with this meeting?  This whole exercise is pure propaganda, in my opinion.

Obama saying he will look at any options the Republicans bring to the table is more empty talk.  Sure, he'll look at their proposals - and then discard them for the behemoth public option he is so desperate to pass.  This isn't about reconciliation and compromise - it's about the Republicans bending to Obama's will and passing the 2,000 page nightmare Pelosi and Reid have cooked up and can't get enough of their own people to vote for.

This is just a dog and pony show to try to make the Republicans look like the party of no yet again.

Personally, I think the 'party of no' designation is a good thing.  They have been staunch in their denial of all things socialist.  They have been united in their condemnation of the insane spending policies of this administration.  They have held the line and refused to bend to pressure, bribery and threats.  They listened to the millions of Americans protesting the actions of this administration and tried their best to do the will of the people.  They said no to the radical agenda being pushed on us, and I, for one, am grateful, because it seems like those in power just aren't listening.  So, please 'obstruct' away!

This whole 'summit' idiocy is a desperate ploy by the Democrats to place the blame on the Republicans for health care reform not passing, because they realize the American people know that the only thing holding them back is themselves. 

Democrats are great at shifting blame - after all, they managed to blame all of Nancy Pelosi's spending and deficit inducing policies on George Bush (oh, and Pelosi refused to approve a 2009 budget from Bush, so the whole "budget for the entire [2009] fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House" argument is a load of hooey).  The President may suggest the budget and spending policies, but Congress holds the purse strings. 

We were finally bouncing back from 9/11 and Katrina and bringing down the deficits when Pelosi took over.  In 2007, the year Pelosi became Speaker, the deficit was $163 billion - down from a high of $413 billion in 2004.  In 2008, Pelosi's agenda started to affect the country.  The result?  A $455 billion deficit, which has been blamed entirely on Bush.  But that wasn't enough.  They have also tried to blame the staggering $1.3 trillion deficit of 2009 on Bush and the Republicans as well.  They blame TARP for most of the deficit - a bill they voted for as well, including Pelosi, Reid and then-Senator Obama.  But TARP wasn't what blew up the deficit - Stimulus, the omnibus spending bill and a $3.6 trillion budget did that.  They increased spending by about 18%, and are still trying to blame the resulting deficit on a man who hasn't been in office for over a year.

Over and over again this administration has proven themselves to be duplicitous, conniving, hyper-partisan and willing to stoop to any low to further their socialist agenda.

I personally hope the Republicans boycott this sham of a summit.  It's a trap, pure and simple.  I suggest they embrace the title 'Party of No' and say no to this summit and this health care plan.   They are in agreement with more than 60% of the country if they do.

UPDATE:  Via HotAir' s Quote of the Day:

“And then when unemployment numbers started proving to be much, much tougher and it started becoming more clear that the stimulus package hadn’t worked properly, they just kept plowing ahead on health care. And this isn’t a communications problem. This is a reality problem. And I think they just made some grave miscalculations and as it became more clear that they had screwed up, they just kept doubling down their bet.
“And so I think, no, this is one of the biggest miscalculations that we’ve seen in modern political history.”

The exit quote for Cook's interview is fantastic:

But if I had a choice of the Republican Party's problems right now or the Democratic Party's problems, I think you could triple the Republican Party's problems and I'd still rather have their problems than the problems facing Democrats.

Amen, brother....

A 'HEALTHY' DOSE OF DENIAL

In an interview with Katie Couric, President Obama defended his hopey-changey message.  "Democrats wrote to me," Katie began with an apologetic smile, "saying you campaigned on a slogan of change you can believe in, but their lives and the ways of Washington, they wrote, haven't changed at all."

President Obama then launches into a denial-filled explaination of how transparent his administration is.  He mentions the fact that his visitor logs for the White House are available to the public - something unheard of with other administrations (and you know who he means!).  Of course he neglects to mention that those same logs were kept locked up (even after two federal rulings that the informtion was public), until November of '09 and even then, the list wasn't quite complete, it just went back to Sept. '09.  The new era of transparency leaves much to be desired, in my opinion.

But it gets better.  "We are eliminating lobbyists from boards and commissions," Obama insists.  And what is happening to those lobbyists who are suddenly jobless in DC?  Why, they miraculously get waivers to work in the White House

He finishes up with "There's more transparency on something like the Recovery Act and how taxpayer dollars are being spent than there/s ever been on a project of this size and scale." (has there ever been a project of this size and scale?)  Sure, as long as you don't mind phantom zip codes and congressional districts that don't exist.  And why, exactly, does the website say that about 650,000 jobs have been 'saved or created', but the administration keeps citing 1.5 - 2.4 million?  Easy - they have now changed the rules so that if a company receives stimulus funds, any job within that company now counts as 'saved or created'.  Quite a racket, no?

Obama, Pelosi et al have a little problem.  They truly believe perception is reality, and that if they simply say something often enough, with enough conviction, it will be so.  For the rest of us living in the real world (which luckily has internet access and youtube - something the administration, as tech-savvy has it has been touted as being, seems to have forgotten about), we can hear the spin and find out what's really going on.  Apparently, for about 60% of Americans, their BS detectors are set to ultra sensitive, and claptrap like he was peddling to Couric just doesn't sell anymore.

Now Obama is calling for a health care summit, this time including Republicans and C-SPAN cameras.  I guess bipartisanship and transparency are only necessary if you can't manage to pass it strictly on party lines and behind closed doors.  Can you say 'political act of desperation'?  I know that he is 'pivoting' to jobs, but why can't he just drop the whole health care thing completely for a while?  Get the economy running again and then take up health care over the summer or fall (or, more realistically, next year).  Unfortunately, the administration has managed to sell to their progressive base that economic recovery just won't happen until the health care system has been reformed. 

One thing this administration has gotten really, really good at is painting themselves into corners.

What really strikes me, though, is the petulant tone of the democrats - particularly Obama.  Well, except for Pelosi, who apparently has decided that tone-deaf defiance is the way to go.  Hey Queen Nan - when you said you would "Go through the gate.  If the gate's closed, we'll go over the fence.  If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in.  If that doesn't work we'll parachute in but we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people", who do you think is making all of those obstructions?  That would be the American people, Nan.  You know, your bosses? 

The woman is the poster child for power drunk career political hacks. 

She is the snarling, snapping, rabid pitbull to Obama's shivering chihuahua, barking furiously to cover his uncertainty and incompetence as he hides behind her.  If the republicans can manage to take back the House, she will be neutralized, and that is more than half the battle.    The spin for this administration has become so lame and transparently, patently false that it is hard to believe anyone is falling for it anymore.  Well, except for their hard-core base, which only comprises about 20% of the voting pool, thankfully.  The rest of us respond to the desperate spin with a hearty chuckle these days, as we mark off one more day on the calendar.

The administration will be learning a hard lesson that perception is not reality, come November.  Until then, let them spin away. 

REID REVISES HISTORY

Today Harry Reid addressed the Senate in a bid to browbeat Republican  members into supporting ObamaCare.  After all, he can't seem to rustle up the votes amongst his own party - I guess there aren't as many dems willing to commit career suicide for HarryCari as he thought - so he has to try to 'woo' republicans.  So how did he conduct his wooing?  Did he offer to include some republican amendments?  Did he offer them a seat at the negotiating table?  Did he talk about the positive points of the bill?  (Of course not - there are none - that was a trick question!)

No, Dingy Harry decided to compare Republicans, on whom he blames the inability to pass legislation (Super majority? What super majority?), to the horrible naysayers who opposed abolishing slavery, giving women the vote, and Civil Rights.

Hey Harry - those were all democrats, you idiot.  Just like it is democrats who are holding up the current legislation, ironically enough.  But he wasn't chastising his fellow liberals, he was dressing down the GOP.

This is what happens when you allow liberals to revise history.  Just to give you a clue Harry - which you so desperately need - I will set the record straight for you.

First and foremost, the Republican party was created to abolish slavery.   That was the sole plank in the original and primary party's platform.  Democrats, however, were so desperate to keep slavery that they declared war for it.  Maybe you're not familiar with it, Harry.  It's called the Civil War.  Oh, and the Republicans won, slavery was abolished, to which the democrats responded by promptly started the KKK to keep the black community 'in line'.

Second, in 1872 the Republican National Committee officially added women's suffrage to their platform - the first national political party to do so.  The first presidential candidate to run on women's suffrage was Republican Theordore Roosevelt.  Women's suffrage giant Susan B. Anthony famously said, "I voted for the Republicans.  They gave us the vote."

Which finally brings us the the Civil Rights movement.  Wasn't it Democrat Strom Thurmond who tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957?  Heck, still-sitting Senator Rober Byrd was a former KKK member who personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 hours.

So, Harry, always double check before you whitewash history - sometimes you end up tarring yourself with that brush instead.

MISSING THE POINT Updated

I, like many conservatives, am anxiously awaiting the election results for NY-23. Democrats are saying the republican party is shunning moderates at their own peril, and some republicans are concerned that running a conservative like Hoffman as opposed to a moderate like Scozzafava will cost them seats. That theory of 'who cares how fiscally responsible they are as long as they have an 'R' after their name' has led the party to the minority they have today. And yes, I understand the idea that upstate NY conservatives are more liberal than most, Mr. Gingrich.

Just like in 2006 and 2008, Americans are being told that true conservatives cannot win; that moderates are the only way Republicans can win elections and take over a majority again. By the way, it's mainly democrats saying this, and, after all, they only want to help republicans win elections, right?

Is it just me or is there a whiff of desperation is those adamant cries of 'conservatism is dead'? Methinks thou doth protest too much...

I think the main issue that all conservatives, be they moderate or strict, are truly conservative about is taxation, spending, and the role of the federal government in our everyday lives. THAT is what this election is all about. And democrats know it.

What bothered me about Dede Scozzafava wasn't her pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage stance, it was the fact that she supported the stimulus bill. That denotes fiscal irresponsibility, in my view, and I think there are a lot of conservatives who would agree with me.

No matter what Joe Biden says, you just can't spend yourself out of bankruptcy.

But this is an election with specific issues that people are voting on, not just general party ideology. Doug Hoffman is up in the polls because his main platform is lower taxes, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility - things that are desperately needed right now. Happily, they are also the things that both hard-core and moderate conservatives can agree on whole-heartedly.

What got us into trouble over the past few election cycles was the profligate spending, taxing and rapid growth of the federal beast by republicans as well as democrats. Sure, those types of republicans might appeal to more left-leaning voters, but it also alienates them from their traditional base, so there is more of a cancelling out or even a net loss than a net gain in overall voters. No matter what the liberals might say (loudly, shrilly and a bit desperately, in my humble opinion) about this being an overwhelmingly liberal country, this Gallup poll shows just how wrong they are.

Democrats, with their earmarks and perks and special interests catering were making great strides in seducing the electorate with their overwhelming largess, to the detriment of the country as a whole. The democrat theory of governance is simple - throw money at the problem and eventually people will stop complaining about it. It seems the republicans have adopted that 'path of least resistance' ideology in an attempt at wooing voters with promises of perks and fiscal rewards, and that is one of the main reasons the country is at the brink of financial ruin.

Democrats want to paint republicans into one far-right leaning corner so they can trap them in the guise of 'old-fashionedness' - or the new buzz-word 'status quo', if you prefer - but moderate republicans chafe at that description. They also chafe at fiscal irresponsibility, and that is the heart of the matter. Once our economic house is in order, other conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage can be addressed.

I personally feel, much like Ronald Reagan, that we can all fit under the tent, as long as it is strongly held up by the support poles of low taxation, fiscal responsibility, and limited government. Without those things, the tent collapses, as the 2006 and 2008 elections illustrated.

So when the democrats warn that we will alienate moderates with the hard-core tea party rhetoric, they are completely missing the point. But what else is new when it comes to democrats understanding the Tea Party phenomenon? The tea parties were about reckless spending, taxation that has surpassed high and is now approaching the astronomically confiscatory stage, the massive expansion of the federal government, and profligate special interest payoffs.

Any republican who believes the democratic theory of alienation of moderates is first of all taking advice from their adversaries, which is just not a wise move no matter how you slice it, and second is showing how tone-deaf and out-of-touch they really are.

UPDATE: Dede Scozzafava has just confirmed what most conservatives who are backing Hoffman were saying by endorsing Democrat candidate Bill Owens. There was a lot of talk of her being far more democrat leaning than she was letting on, including speculation that she might change parties as well as her apparent connections to ACORN, and this certainly does nothing to change that opinion. At least her campaign manager is still a conservative and has endorsed Hoffman. It will be interesting to see what effect her endorsement has on the race, if any. 60% of her supporters identify themselves as conservatives and are most likely going to break in Hoffman's favor, but, because Owens and Hoffman are polling so closely (36-35% respectively), it is still anyone's game.

THE LOCKSTEP TANGO Updated

Our Unifier-in-Chief is giving us the warm fuzzies again. Mr. 'There are no Red States, no Blue States, only the United States' is socking it to the republicans again.

This is the guy who the libs keep saying is so bipartisan. *cough, cough* bullhockey *cough, cough*

I personally find his comment funny.

"“Democrats are an opinionated bunch. You know, the other side, they just kinda sometimes do what they’re told. Democrats, y’all thinkin’ for yourselves.”"

Thinking for themselves? Really? These are the same 'sheeple' who are in lockstep on their message. They are the people who parrot whatever the White House tells them to say without question, blindly defending the asinine decisions coming out of Washington.

Huh. Okaaayyy....

Meanwhile, conservatives are openly rebelling against RINOS and liberals in conservative clothing. Wasn't it this administration that was just saying a few months ago that the GOP was in disarray? But now, suddenly, we have a hive mentality. Hey, isn't that a liberal concept? From American Thinker:

"Because the opponents of the hive mentality of mass media have a thousand different opinions and beliefs, mass media finds its opposition incomprehensible and unconquerable. The idea that ten million free Americans could have almost as many viewpoints simply does not occur to people manufactured from childhood with a single viewpoint presented in cartoons, classrooms, college campuses, comedies, and corporate bureaucracies.
The nihilism which passes for thought and belief in the world of leftism relentlessly imposes itself within these bureaucracies of sameness and communal sentiment. The same sheep of sixties radicalism, who listened to the same music, sported the same Marxist murderers on their t-shirts, and who protested the same eternal faults in free societies now have become the big babies governing our big institutions. These eternal infants cannot crush what they cannot understand. "

But the President seems to think conservatives are in lockstep. Am I the only one who feels like we are living in the Bizzarro world?

If it wasn't so offensive, it would be hilarious.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

The 'Obama as Joker' poster has gotten a lot of press lately, and, when there was not a hue and cry against it, Obama's supporters turned to their old friend, the race card. If you don't see anything wrong with this poster, you are a racist. If you protest that you are not, you are a subconscious racist. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/14/la-weekly-if-you-object-to-calling-the-obama-joker-poster-racist-youre-probably-racist/#comment-2573585 Here's an exerpt:

""No, dude, it’s all about race. Racial anxiety and racism are social pathologies that adapt to changing conditions and evolve over time. Conservatives don’t burn crosses at their rallies - contemporary political theater and its language have moved on with the times. Still, I remember that even back in the days when cross burnings were in vogue — and when it seemed that civil rights workers were being killed every month in the Deep South — even then you would rarely find a segregationist proclaiming, on television at least, that he was a racist and believed blacks were inferior. Instead, the racist argument was usually couched in terms of “state’s rights,” “mutual benefits,” of how Negroes themselves didn’t want race-mixing, that they were basically good, hard-working people who were being duped by Communists…""

I have had it up to here with the racial accusations by democrats about republicans. It is ridiculous. I know that they have been busily rewriting history in their textbooks and college classes, but that doesn't change the truth. Here's the truth:

The DEMOCRAT party was the party of southern white slaveholders.

It was DEMOCRATS who started the KKK after the Civil War as a way to keep the black population under the boot.

It was DEMOCRATS who burned crosses and hung black men for such minor things as looking at a white woman and killed civil rights workers like Medgar Evers (Byron De La Beckwith, Evers' murderer, was a lifelong KKK member who later in life attempted a run for the democratic nomination to be Lt. Governor of Mississippi.)

It was DEMOCRATS who expanded and then fought to keep the Jim Crow laws.

It is DEMOCRATS who rely, to this day, on the politics of race to keep this country separated and fighting amongst itself.

The REPUBLICAN party was created in the 1850’s specifically to oppose slavery and the induction of pro-slavery states into the Union.

REPUBLICANS fought and died to free the slaves - it's called the Civil War.

REPUBLICANS supported civil rights and fought to get rid of Jim Crow laws.

REPUBLICANS include Matin Luther King Jr., Homer Plessy (who’s lawsuit, Plessy v. Ferguson, which he lost, ushered in the Jim Crow laws), Booker T. Washington, Ida B. Wells (founder of NAACP), Sojourner Truth, Jackie Robinson, James Meredith (civil rights leader), Alveda King, James L. Farmer Jr.(civil rights leader), Charles Evers (civil rights leader and brother of Medgar Evers), Eldridge Cleaver (civil rights leader), the list goes on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_American_Republicans

Look them up. Please. Information is power.

Many black civil rights leaders were republicans, because they were fighting against democrats. While you're at it, you should also check out the early years of the Progressive (liberal) party. Quite an eye opener. Look into Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) and her belief in eugenics - she used to speak on the subject at KKK rallies. I will be writing more about her and the Progressive movement in the future.

They can try to project the crimes of the Democrats onto the Republicans, but history proves them wrong, time after time.